About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
CSPAN 19
CSPAN2 13
MSNBCW 12
CNBC 4
FBC 4
CNNW 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 60
Search Results 54 to 59 of about 60
is not an investment but an insurance policy against the collapse of the dollar. when your cost of insurance goes down, it means you're healthier. the chicken little scenario, larry, we run trillion-dollar deficits, borrow half from foreigners, they'll stop lending us money or at least not at low rates and we'll crash. now, that's not going to happen. because of the energy boom, we're going to have the first trade surplus in a generation by 2020, as things are going. and that means we can finance things deficits as far as the eye can see. doesn't mean the economy isn't weak. we will have a deficit. the good news is, our credit is going to be good. the rest will keep lending us money at low interest rates and that's a big plus for the stock market. >> peter schiff, an interesting take that david goldman has used and i've given him a hat tip for it. energy independence, we don't have to import from the saudis other other people, the trade baume' go into surplus. that would be good for the dollar and that in turn would really crush gold. that's a strong dollar, not the volcker way, peter, as you pointed
to him of his reign. his father died in 1944. two years before that, his dad told foreign reporters that his son, kim jung il had been in charge of day-to-day policies for the previous decade. that takes us back to the early 1980's. if you want to get into real inside baseball, north koreaian media was talking about the rise of the party center in the 1970's. party center being eventually debuted as kim jung il. he had about a quarter century of grooming before becoming the king. he had a long time to consolidate authority. with with his hands on the dashbored, he-dived the plane. he was the only -- he more or less destroyed the institutions of party and state. so by the late 1990's and early 2000's there was no correspondence between what the party was supposed to look like and what the cabinet and state system was supposed to look like and the way he was operating the government. he was more or less running the country out of his bathtub with a couple of police secret forces to help. he paid no attention whatsoever to continuing the dynasty. he was completely feckless on this. t
on foreign relations, previously was a project director for the 2009 independent task force on u.s. immigration policy and previously worked at the financial times with the washington bureau chief there. from norths us now branford, connecticut on our independent line. caller: good morning. i am in disagreement with your guest. he says there is no problem on immigration. watched c-span and heard the calls come in about immigration yucca guest: -- host: they are against immigration? let's let him give his take on the immigration issue. talkinge have been about the boston issue. that is a screening history. there is a broader issue of immigration reform in washington. we have an 840 four page bill drawn up by the so-called gang of eight. hearing in the senate judiciary committee today. this is a big bill and raises issues far beyond the boston bombings. if you actually look at public opinion polls, most americans either say we have enough immigration now, or somewhat too much. it is a small minority of americans calling for more immigration. generally, americans are happy with the
by foreign governments. the cia recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged many of the interrogation techniques were inconsistent with the public policy positions the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when they criticize another nation for engaging in torture and the unjustified same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques of waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel which issued a decision of proving of their use because they defined them as not being tortured. those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and even if its opinion it relies on a very legal definition of torture but also on factual representations about how the techniques of would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is an important context as to how the opinion came about but also as to how policy makers rely upon it. based upon a faeroe view of the available public record we determined that an appl
characterized the treatment as torture when used by foreign governments. the c.i.a. recognized this in an internal review and realized many of the interrogation techniques employed were contrary with the policy the u.s. has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques like waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal council which issued a decision approving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those decisions have since been repudiated by the o.l.c. it's sefment even in it's peap it relies not only on a narrow definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is important context as to how the opinion came about, but also as to how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the available reco
by foreign governments. the cia recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged that many of the interrogation techniques it employed were inconsistent with the public policy positions the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques like waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel which issued a decision approving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and the olc itself. and even in its opinion it relied not only on a very narrow legal definition of torture, but also on factual representations about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is an important context as to how the opinion came about but also as to how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of t
Search Results 54 to 59 of about 60